Sorry if I have that wrong, but wasn't he outed as being a CP lover? Lunduke did a series of videos on this, did that ever get resolved? Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... isn't that the same guy?

Don't just bring it back, teach penmanship! Every student should be proficient in Spencerian cursive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., and be able to write it beautifully with all the curves and details clear, and with the right flow. There should be a penmanship requirement to graduate primary school, outside special cases, and if you can't measure up, you don't graduate grade 8.

Does anyone else remember being told "If I can't read it, you fail!", or something to that effect? There were kids in the 90s who invented a new English form, it wasn't intelligible, it wasn't scribble, or shorthand, it was basically hieroglyphics. Speaking of shorthand, how many people do you know who can write in shorthand? Do you know anyone? If you can't write with a pen, and paper, you can't communicate, and that's a major issue. Years ago one of my neurologists used to submit prescriptions in medical shorthand, he refused to use the computer. The pharmacists couldn't read the prescriptions. My wife is a nurse, and occasionally, rarely, will get a medical shorthand order, and she is the only nurse at the clinic who can read them. Not one of a few, the only one.

We're at a point where people can't sign their names, they can barely print them in block letters. 90%+ of the forms I fill out, have to be printed, or done on the computer to be accepted, why? Years ago I submitted a letter to the CRA (I'm in Ontario, Canada), and I cursively wrote on the form, and it was denied for being unreadable. Unreadable? I take my penmanship seriously, I drill and practice my Spencerian cursive, it's pretty damn nice, and the only reason you couldn't read it, you can't read.

The last medical form I had to fill out, required capitalized block letters printed, so not in cursive. In grade 1, over 30 years ago, we had to print in block letters that were capitalized, and we've come full circle. On another ridiculous note, if you try to put a cursively written cheque into any of the ATM's in town, it will either spit it back out, or, keep it and mark it as fraudulent cheque. I've had to speak to a teller because it marked a cheque as fraudulent, and when she pulled it up, she immediately told me to print on the cheques, the OCR won't accept a cursively written cheque, are you actually f'ing kidding me?

Okay, fine, the OCR is messed up, but try to cash it with a teller, and you'll probably get told you need to rewrite the cheque. I had the manager come over and tell me they couldn't accept cursively written cheques because the tellers couldn't read them. How did you hire a teller who can't read? This is serious, how did you do that? Frankly, I think all interviews should require a writing test, if you can't write, you can't communicate, and a phone, or computer is not going to fix that. People will say when is the last time you had to write in cursive? Had to? No idea, but let's assume grade 12, but, how often do I write in cursive, daily. My logbook is 30 cm from me, my favourite fountain pen is also ~30cm from me. Why do I write things down? Helps me remember, helps me build my day, and helps reinforce what I need to work on, and, importantly, keeps a safe backup of what I work on.

If Clockify goes offline today, I can rebuild my entire work history from my logbooks, can anyone else?

I'm in Ontario, Canada.

I have two daughters one finishing primary, and one finishing secondary, and no offence to them, they're reasonable smart kids, but they'd fall into this. Is it there fault? My old daughter was telling me about a book she hated, and was forced to read by a teacher. I can't remember the name of the book, but I've been forced to read it, and its garbage. Not questionable, my taste might differ, just bad writing, empty plots, useless character development, and dry. I don't remember the name of it because so many of the books we force kids to read are terrible.

The Pearl, Crab, The Great Gatsby, Where the Red Fern Grows, David, The Kay, and so on, all terrible books. Shakespeare, why are kids still reading that nonsense? It gets even worse, both of them have been in the reading club, and you'd think that would mean they can read what they want, no, no they can't. There was an "approved" reading list. Approved reading list? Why does a book club have an approved reading list?

Most of the titles on that list were picked for political reasons. White Fragility, might be the new standard of incompetence in written form, it's not just written poorly, I think the author might have been suffering, and if suffering, a complete break from reality. Among other works were Indigenous authors, which in itself is not an issue, but the books were terrible. There were feminist authors, who really just wrote hate manifestos, again, terribly written. There were a number of authors from different cultures, but again, the books were terribly written. That's the theme, terribly written books, so poorly written that you can't figure out the theme, there was no clear theme, just rambled nonsense.

We've effectively taught kids that the more rambled and incoherent the output, the most inclusive your point, but in the process, they don't know how to structure a valid point, or carry a stable theme. A kid is yelling to "F off with the books", maybe they're waking up. Perhaps they're finally sick and tired of reading crap, 25 years ago, the books were still terrible, and they didn't get better over time. Perhaps it's time to rethink how we teach literature to kids, and let them explore and experience what they want to read.

I have a fair number of Anne Rice novels, with explicit, dark, and intense themes. If you're an educator, and a child brought one of the those books, by choice, into the classroom, and you deny it, you're doing a disservice to that child. The themes are intense, usually forced around BDSM, but, telling a kid they can't read what they want, doesn't instill a love of reading, it instills a sense of censorship. Let's assume a kid brings one of the those book, maybe one with heavy, dark, and sexually vivid written imagery, if you're not prepared to have an honest discussion about it as an educator, you shouldn't be in education.

Right, so in the same context hate speech has to be outright nearly absolutely declaration of overwhelming hatred. In of the other sub threads someone questioned if saying: "All white people should die", could be hate speech, and no, it's not. If you said "All white people should die, we should repurpose the concentration camps to irradiate any essence of support of that would, could be whiteness because, whiteness if a stain and filthy contamination upon this planet. A sicking exampling of true uselessness.", then follow up by making absolute declarations of that, I think that could be hate speech.

Before you even tread on the concept of hate speech, you have to pass through numerous lesser states, including being obscene. It's not something you can make without intention, and pure intention, to the point you know you're doing it, as motivation of externalizing your almost primal disdain for a group.

I agree, 100%, it becomes hate speech if you keep going, but it has to be some kind of intensive, outright, overwhelming declaration of hate.

It wouldn't be hate speech if you have reasonable context for the statement. If your family was killed by a white person, and therefore you hate all white people, and think they should die, your context is justified based on experience. You were deeply traumatized by a subset of a group; therefore, you are holding the group to the standard of the subset, it's justified. You could probably turn it into hate speech, if you wanted to stand up concentration camps, and send all white people to them, ya, that could most likely qualify.

The case was public, it's not possible for anyone whose not mentally deranged to hold his statements as hate speech. Using the most woke, liberal, intentional distorted spin, you couldn't get there. Hate speech is an extremely high bar, you can't clear it without intentional and willing action.

Take the term racist, which 99% of everyone gets wrong, its definition is: "The hatred of someone solely, and exclusive based off their race, and, the assertion that your race is superior.", that's it. There is nothing else to consider, no room for adjustment, it's an intentional, willing, and held belief. You could walk around yelling the N-word, don't, but you could, that doesn't qualify as racist, or an act of racism, and it wouldn't qualify as hate speech, to spite being completely, and grossly unacceptable.

I never said anything like, let's take your assumption at face value that white men have some kind of violence issue, we don't, but let's assume. I can absolutely ask you what you mean, if you then show statistics, and evidence, fair enough, it's not hate speech. Furthermore, I'm not sure that claiming them without any stats or evidence would qualify. It's really more a stupid opinion if you won't show anything, but that doesn't qualify as hate speech.

I don't think either points count as hate speech, if you incite violence maybe for it's a good reason. For instance, if you force violence against the government due to C-22, that's not hate, that's protection of freedom and digital liberty. It's also domestic terrorism, to be fair, but the positive effects of the terrorism vastly out weigh the negative, for that example. Judging someone just because, for no real reason, isn't hate speech, the effects of it could be, but the judging alone doesn't qualify.

Sure, but Google has to do the leg work.

Again, I didn't say it's not a thing, what I said was you can't create an objective standard for it. The overall issue is that labelling everything as hate speech that you disagree with, causes the definition to get so murky, and overextended, that it has no value. Think of the term racism, or misogyny, how often are they completely misused? 99% of the time? What about the term literally? I believe the definition has been extended to also include figuratively because everyone misused it.

Since hate speech is already overextended, governments are using the nonexistent mass-inclusive definition of hate speech, which is essentially, anything a liberal can misunderstand and take offence to. They take that definition and use it to force grotesque legislation, such as C-8, C-9 and C-22. In BC, a person was sued for human rights abuse for insisting there are only two genders, and they considered his comments hate speech. Hell, in Canada, they try to legislate pronoun use, claiming that not using fictional linguistic alignment choices, is somehow hate speech. Is it?

I'm not arguing that Facebook is basically a wasteland of useless nonsense, it is, so is Twitter, Mastodon, and all of social media. That being that case, describing things as hate speech, is not acceptable, unless you can demonstrate to a substantive level, such a threshold.

Take your example, why did the person or people make those comments? The context matters, and possibly, it was driven by overwhelming hatred of race, and the pure existence of that group, in which case, fair.

I never said it doesn't exist, I said you can't give an objective definition for it, making the term almost useless.

If you can't define hate speech, should we trust you've defined racist abuse correctly? What they probably meant was xenophobic comments were made. I don't take issue with the concept of a violent threat being made, those constantly happen, but they're rarely racist, or, true hate speech, so at best some threats got thrown around, that weren't serious or actionable. If they want to call out question content, that's fine, but you have to be more accurate.

I'll gladly concede to questionable content, but throwing around a term, like hate speech, isn't helpful. In Canada, they tried to amend Bill C-9 so denying the mass graves at residential school, would be an offence. Many people consider the act of questioning the lack of evidence, as hate speech. An NDP leader openly called questioning of Islam an action of Islamophobia, and tried to label that as hate speech, which it isn't.

The problem with labelling everything as hate speech, is that people will look at that quote, and assume there's actually been a rise, and we need more moderation and safeguards, for a non-existent issue. Canada is already going through this with Bill C-8, C-9, and C-22.

Fine, but don't say hate speech increased, just point out questionable content increased, which is a fair statement. Hate speech isn't the issue, since you can't define an objective standard for it, that's what I'm calling out.

What is hate speech? Hate speech is not well-defined, and as governments keep demonstrating is a very flexible, and random standard. In Canada, suggesting that Islam has a radicalization and extremist problem, is seen as Islamophobia, and therefore, hate speech, but is the statement hateful? No, it's a factual statement. If I deny that mass graves exist at former residential school locations, is that hate speech? No, there has been no evidence provided that show the radar found bone or skeletons. If I suggest that MMIWG2SLGBTQQIA+ is a nonsense term, is that hate speech? No, it's an expanding acronym, that changes as the wind blows, they added MMIW to the front, as a political statement.

If anyone can define hate speech, as an objective absolute standard, what is it? The difference between hate speech, and freedom of expression / freedom of speech, is very narrow, and that really calls into question how hate speech is objectively tested. Is denying the holocaust hate speech? It's stupid speech, sure, but hate speech? If you deny it, and blame the Jews for committing a cover-up, well, also calling survivors as liers, and do so with conviction, that might rise to the level of hate speech, but it's still subjective.

When I point out our provincial NDP leader is an idiot, who constantly confuses basic concept, that's not hate speech, that's truthful. She's still mad that Ford is privatizing Health Care, but, he's not because he can't, you can't privatize a private system. In Ontario, we have a public insurance plan, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). Ford is expanding who and what OHIP will subsidize. That's a very different statement then he's privatizing health care, yet, she'll claim attacks from the "far right", when she's corrected.